Must Reads ↑ Top
Showing posts with label Luminosity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luminosity. Show all posts
Soh

關於無我(No-Self)、空性、摩訶(Maha)與平常,以及自然本自圓成

文章作者:Thusness/PasserBy
最後更新:2009年3月14日

歡迎加入我們在 Facebook 上的討論組 - https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/
(更新:Facebook 羣組現已關閉,但您仍可加入以查閱舊討論。那是一個信息寶庫。)

如有翻譯改進建議,或您能協助翻譯爲其他語言,請聯繫: 聯繫我們

另見:
“I AM” 之後的兩種非二元觀照
+A 與 -A 的空性
John Tan 的 YouTube 視頻與音頻:緣起與空性的統一

來不知爲何,關於無我的話題不斷在論壇上浮現。也許是“緣”(條件)已生起。-:) 我就隨筆寫下一些關於我“無我”體驗的思緒。只是隨緣分享,並非權威之論。

下面兩首偈頌,在引導我直接體驗無我的過程中起了關鍵作用。儘管它們似乎都在傳達關於無我的同一件事,但觀修這兩首偈頌,卻會生起兩種很不相同的體驗性洞見:一種偏向空性層面,另一種偏向非二元的光明層面。由這些體驗生起的洞見非常照亮人心,因爲它們與我們通常對“覺知是什麼”的理解相衝突。

有思,無思者
有聞,無聞者
有見,無見者

於思,僅有念
於聞,僅有聲
於見,僅有形色。

在繼續深入之前,極其重要的是:必須知道,絕無可能通過推論、邏輯演繹或歸納來正確理解這些偈頌。並不是說這些偈頌有什麼神祕或超驗之處,而只是因爲頭腦喋喋不休的方式本身就是“錯誤進路”。正確的方法,是通過內觀(vipassana),或任何更直接、更專注的純然觀察方式,使人能夠如其所是地看見事物。順帶一提,當非二元洞見成熟時,這種了知方式會變得自然;在此之前,它可能相當“費力”。

關於第一首偈頌

從對第一首偈頌的初步瞥見中,最明顯的兩種體驗,是無造作者,以及對沒有主宰者(agent)的直接洞見。這兩種體驗是我七個洞見階段中第五階段的關鍵。

1. 沒有一個連結並協調諸體驗的造作者。
沒有那個連結的“我”,種種現象(念頭、聲音、感受等等)便如泡影般,自由、自發、無邊無際地浮現與展現。隨著造作者性的缺席,也有一種深邃的自由感與通透感。聽起來或許矛盾,但在體驗上確實如此。當我們太緊抓“自性見”時,便無法得到正確的理解。令人驚訝的是,“自性見”竟如此阻礙我們看見:自由就是無造作者、相依互聯、光明與非二元臨在。

2. 對沒有主宰者的直接洞見。
在這裏,有一種直接認出:沒有“主宰者”。只是一個念頭,然後另一個念頭。因此,始終是念頭看著念頭,而不是一個觀者在看念頭。然而,此番了悟的要旨偏向於一種自發的解脫體驗,以及對諸法空性本質的模糊一瞥——也就是說,無常的現象如泡影般短暫、虛幻,無有實質或堅固性。在這個階段,我們不應誤以爲已經徹底體驗了諸法與覺知的“空”性,儘管很容易有這種誘惑。-:)

根據個體條件的不同,它可能並不顯而易見:“始終是念看著念,而非一個觀者在看念。”或“觀者就是那個念。”因爲這是關鍵洞見,是解脫道上不容出錯的一步,所以我忍不住要帶著一點不敬的語氣說:

對於那些如此教導的大師:
“任念頭生起又落下,
看見背景之鏡圓滿而不受影響。”
恕我直言,他們只是說了些好聽卻迷惑人的空話。

反而,

要看見念頭背後沒有任何人。
先是一念,然後另一念。
隨著洞見深化,日後將揭示:
始終只是此一念!
無生,光明而空!

這正是無我的全部目的:徹底看穿這個背景實際上並不存在。存在的是流、行動或業。沒有造作者,也沒有任何被作之物,只有行作;沒有禪修者,也沒有所謂的“禪修”,只有正在禪修。從放下的角度看,“一個觀者在看念頭”會製造一種印象,彷彿一個觀者允許念頭生起與落下,而它自身不受影響。這是一種幻相;是僞裝成“放下”的“抓取”。當我們認識到從一開始就沒有背景時,實相會呈現爲一個整體的放下。隨著修習,伴隨洞見成熟,“意圖”會減弱,“行作”會逐漸被體驗爲純粹自發的發生,彷彿宇宙在做這件事。藉由“緣起”的指點,我們可以進一步穿透,看見此發生純然是一切與一切相互作用而生起的表達。事實上,如果我們不將“宇宙”實體化,它就只是如此——一個緣起的表達,無論何時何地都恰如其分。

理解這一點,修習便只是向當下的一切敞開。
因爲這純然的發生,無論何時何地皆恰如其分。
雖無處可稱爲家,卻處處是家。

當體驗在大安逸的修習中成熟,
體驗即是摩訶(Maha)!偉大、奇妙而喜樂。
在觀看、進食和品嚐等平常活動中,
若以詩意表達,便如整個宇宙在禪修。

凡所言說與表達,實則皆是不同風味,
都是這一切之中的一切依緣而起,
作爲此刻生動之閃耀。

屆時便會明了,無常現象早已在以完美的方式發生:該鬆解的鬆解,該顯現的顯現,該止息時便止息。這種無常的發生毫無問題;唯一的問題是那一面“額外的鏡子”,是心智抽象能力造成的實體化。鏡子並非完美;完美的是發生本身。鏡子看似完美,僅是二元見與自性見中的完美。

我們根深蒂固的自性見與二元見,已經非常微細而不自覺地把“光明層面”人格化爲觀者,並把“空性層面”丟給無常現象。因此修習的關鍵挑戰,是清楚看見光明與空性是一體而不可分的;它們從未、也絕不可能被分開。

關於第二首偈頌

對於第二首偈頌,重點在於無常現象的生動、鮮明與純淨。念頭、聲音及一切暫現現象,與覺知不可分。沒有體驗者與體驗的分裂,只有一個無縫、自發的體驗,作爲思者/念頭、聞者/聲音、感者/感受等等而生起。在聽聞中,聞者與聲音不可分別地爲一。對於任何熟悉“I AM”體驗的人來說,那種純粹存在感,那種使人感到如此真實的強烈臨在體驗,是難以忘懷的。當背景消失時,所有前景現象都顯露自身爲臨在。它像是自然地貫穿於“內觀”狀態,或簡單地說,無遮地在覺知中。從電腦的嘶嘶聲,到行駛中的地鐵列車震動,再到腳觸地面的感覺,所有這些體驗都晶瑩剔透,絲毫不比“I AM”遜色。臨在仍然全然臨在,什麼都沒有被否定。-:)

主體與客體的分裂,僅是臆測。
因此,有某人放下與有某物被放下,皆是幻相。
當自我變得愈發通透,
諸法亦隨之愈發光明。
在徹底通透中,一切發生皆純淨而生動清晰。
處處瞭然,生機盎然!

屆時將會顯而易見:只有根深蒂固的二元知見,才障蔽了我們對此體驗性事實的洞見。在實際體驗中,只有諸法晶瑩剔透地顯現。隨著此體驗成熟,身心消融爲純粹的非二元光明,而一切現象在體驗上被理解爲此非二元光明臨在的顯現——這是引向“一切唯心”了悟的關鍵洞見。

此後,不要過度沉醉或宣稱超過必要的成就;應進一步參究。這種非二元光明,是否呈現任何獨立、不變、恆常的自性特徵?修行者仍可能在相當長的時間裏,不知不覺地將非二元臨在凝固化。這就是我在七個洞見階段第四階段中所描述的“一面鏡子”的印記。雖然體驗是非二元的,但空性的洞見尚未生起。雖然二元束縛已充分鬆解,“自性見”仍然很強。

當“主體”消失時,體驗變成非二元,但我們忘記了“客體”。當客體被進一步空掉時,我們見到法身(Dharmakaya)。
務必清楚看見:最初被參透的“主體”只是統合五蘊的標籤;但下一個需要被否定的層面,正是我們正在空掉的臨在——它不是一個標籤,而是本質上爲非二元的臨在本身。

對於已經成熟非二元洞見的真誠佛教修行者,他們可以自問:如果非二元臨在就是最終,佛陀爲何如此強調緣起?這種體驗仍然非常吠檀多式,更像“梵”(Brahman)而不是“空性”(Sunyata)。這種“非二元臨在的堅固性”必須藉由緣起和空性來打破。瞭解這一點,修行者便能進一步理解非二元臨在的空性(緣起性)本質。這是依第一首偈頌對無我體驗的進一步精煉。

至於那些“I AMness”的修行者,在非二元洞見之後,常常安住於非二元臨在中。他們樂於“砍柴挑水”和“春來草自青”。很難再強調什麼;這種體驗確實看似最終。希望“緣”(條件)能爲這些修行者生起,使他們看清這個阻礙看見的微細印記。

關於空性

相關:John Tan 關於此主題的視頻與音頻彙集在這裏:John Tan 的 YouTube 視頻與音頻:緣起與空性的統一

如果我們觀察念頭,並問念頭從何處生起、如何生起、“念頭”是什麼樣子,“念頭”會顯露其本性爲空——生動地臨在,卻完全不可定位。非常重要的是,不要去推論、思考或概念化,而要用我們的整個存在去感受這種“不可得”和“不可定位”。它似乎棲息於“某處”,但絕無可能定位它。它只是一個“在那裏”的印象,卻從未真正“在那裏”。同樣,“此地性”和“當下性”也只是由感受、因緣和合形成的印象,並無任何固有的“在那裏”;它和“自我感”一樣,同樣是空。

這種不可得、不可定位的空性本質,並非僅爲“念頭”所特有。一切體驗或感覺都是如此——生動地臨在,卻不具實性、不可得、自發、不可定位。

若我們觀察一朵如此生動、清晰、就在眼前的紅花,“紅色”似乎只“屬於”花,實際上並非如此。紅色視覺並非在所有動物物種中都會生起(狗無法感知顏色),而“紅色”也不是心智的固有屬性。若以“量子視力”觀看其原子結構,同樣找不到任何“紅色”的屬性,只有幾乎完全的空間/空隙,沒有可感知的形狀與形態。任何顯現皆是緣起的,因此不具任何固有存在、固定屬性、形狀、形態或“紅色”——只是光明而空,只是沒有固有/客觀實存的顯現。

同樣,當站在燃燒的火坑前,“火”這個整體現象、燃燒的熱量、整個“熱”的感覺,雖如此生動地臨在、看似如此真實,但若加以審視,也並非固有地“在那裏”——只是當因緣具足時依緣而顯。令人驚訝的是,二元見與自性見竟將無縫體驗囚禁在誰、何處、何時的構造中。

所有體驗都是空的。它們如空花,如池塘水面上的畫。絕無可能指著一個體驗剎那說這是“內”而那是“外”。一切“內”皆如“外”;對於覺知而言,只有無縫體驗。重要的不是鏡子或池塘,而是池塘表面顏料閃爍的那種如幻現象過程;如幻而非幻,如夢而非夢。這是一切體驗的基底。

然而這種“不可得與不可定位”的本質並不是全部;還有摩訶(Maha),這種沒有邊界的偉大“相互關聯”感。當有人敲鐘時,那個人、棍子、鍾、空氣振動、耳朵,然後聲音的奇妙顯現——“咚……迴響……”——這一切都是同一個無縫發生,同一個體驗。當呼吸時,就只是這整個完整的呼吸;它是所有因緣匯聚而生起的整個呼吸感覺,彷彿整個宇宙都在做此呼吸。摩訶體驗的意義不在文字;在我看來,如果沒有這種體驗,就不會有對“相互關聯”的真實體驗,非二元臨在便是不完整的。

對我們空性本質的體驗,與非二元合一的體驗非常不同。例如,“距離”在非二元合一中,是通過看穿能所分裂的虛幻性而被克服,並導致一個非二元臨在。它把一切看作只是“這個”;但體驗空性,則通過其空、不可得、不可定位的本質來打破邊界。

當我們深入穿透這種本質時,不再需要一個“何處之地”、一個“何時之時”、或一個“何人之我”。當聽到聲音時,聲音既不在“這裏面”也不在“那外面”,它如其所是並消逝!隨著顯現是緣起、因此爲空的智慧生起,所有中心與參照點都消融。此體驗產生一種“無論何時何地皆恰如其分”的感覺:處處是家,雖無處可稱爲家。在體驗臨在的空性本質時,真誠修行者會清楚:非二元臨在確實留下了微細印記;見其本質爲空,使體驗凝固化的最後印記消融。感覺清涼,因爲臨在變得更臨在、更毫不費力。於是我們從“生動的非二元臨在”進入“雖生動且非二元地臨在,卻非實有,乃空!”

關於摩訶(Maha)與平常

摩訶的體驗聽起來可能像是在追求某種特殊體驗,並似乎與禪宗所推崇的“開悟的平常”相矛盾。事實並非如此;事實上,若沒有這種體驗,非二元是不完整的。本節不是要談達到摩訶階段,而是要看見空性(Sunyata)在本質上即是摩訶。在摩訶中,人感覺不到自我;人“感覺”宇宙。人不感覺“梵”,而是感覺“相互關聯”。人不會因“依賴與互聯”而感到“無助”,反而感到偉大、無邊、自發而奇妙。現在讓我們回到“平常”。

平常向來是道家的長處。在禪宗裏,我們也從洞山五位十牛圖等悟境模型中看到其重要性。但平常只能被理解爲:非二元與真如的摩訶世界並不在平常之外。沒有一個彼岸境界需要到達,也從未有一個與我們的日常世界相分離的狀態;反之,是要把這種非二元與摩訶體驗的本初、原始、無染體驗帶入最世俗的活動中。如果在最世俗、最平常的活動中找不到它,那麼修行者尚未成熟其理解與修習。

在此之前,摩訶體驗在自然狀態中一直是罕見的,被視爲來去的短暫體驗。誘發這種體驗通常涉及在短時間內專注地重複某項任務,例如:如果我們一呼一吸、一呼一吸……直到只剩下這整個呼吸的感覺,只是呼吸作爲所有因緣匯聚成此刻顯現;如果我們專注於踏步的感覺,那堅實的感覺,直到腳觸地時只剩下這整個“堅實”之感,只是這“堅實”作爲所有因緣匯聚成此刻顯現;如果我們專注於聽聞有人敲鐘,那根棍、那口鍾、空氣振動、耳朵全部聚合,生起此聲音的感覺,我們便會有摩訶體驗……

然而,自從將緣起教法融入非二元臨在之後,多年來它變得更“可及”,但這從未被理解爲一種基底狀態。似乎可以看見緣起與空性、以及非二元臨在的體驗之間有一種可預期的關係。

一週前,摩訶的清晰體驗顯現,並變得相當毫不費力;同時有一種直接的了悟:它也是一種自然狀態。在空性中,摩訶是自然的,並且必須完全納入體驗一切生起之物的道路中。儘管如此,將摩訶作爲基底狀態需要非二元體驗的成熟;我們無法以分裂的心,完全感受到萬物作爲此刻生動顯現的相互關聯、自發而成。

宇宙即是此生起之念。
宇宙即是此生起之聲。
僅此壯麗之生起!
即是道。
頂禮一切生起。

關於自然本自圓成(Spontaneous Perfection)

最後,當這兩種體驗相互滲透時,真正需要的只是開放而毫無保留地體驗一切生起。聽起來可能很簡單,但切勿低估這條簡單道路;即使累劫修行,也無法觸及其深奧之萬一。

事實上,在所有小節——“關於第一首偈頌”、“關於第二首偈頌”、“關於空性”——中,都已在某種程度上強調自然之道。關於自然之道,我必須說,自然臨在(spontaneous presence)以及開放、無保留、無畏地體驗一切生起,並非任何傳統或宗教的“專屬道路”——無論是禪宗、大手印、大圓滿、不二論、道教還是佛教。事實上,自然之道乃是“道”之道;道教不能因其歷史較長就壟斷此“道路”。我的經驗是,任何真誠的修行者,在成熟了非二元體驗之後,最終都會自動而自然地來到這一點。它彷彿流淌在血液中;除了自然之道,別無他途。

話雖如此,自然與自發之道常被誤解。它不應被理解爲無需做任何事或不需要修習。相反,它是一位修行者最深的洞見:在一輪又一輪精煉其對無我、空性與緣起的洞見之後,他突然了悟到,無我是一法印,而非二元光明與空性向來是一切體驗的基底。於是修習從“專注”模式轉向“毫不費力”模式,而這需要非二元與空性的洞見完全滲透我們的整個存在,就像“自性見與二元見”曾經侵入意識一樣。

無論如何,必須謹慎,切勿把我們空而光明的本性實體化爲某種形而上本質。我將以我在另一篇博客《光明的空性(Luminous Emptiness)》中寫的一段評論作結,因爲它很好地概括了我所寫的內容。

“毫不費力”的程度,
就是我們對當下一切,能多無保留、多無畏地敞開的程度。
因爲凡生起者皆是心,恆被見、被聞、被嘗與被體驗。
那未被見、未被聞、未被體驗的,
是我們關於心爲何物的概念性想法。

每當我們把那“燦爛、那純淨”客體化爲一個無形實體,
它便成了所執之物,遮蔽了我們看見“諸相”——亦即覺知的紋理與質地。
客體化傾向是微細的;
我們放下了“自我感”,卻不知不覺地抓取了“此時感”與“此地感”。
凡生起者,僅是緣起,無需誰、何處與何時。

一切體驗平等,光明而無自性。
雖空,卻絲毫不否定其生動之光明。

解脫,即是如其本然地體驗心。
自行解脫,是徹底洞悉此解脫向來如是、本已如是;
自然臨在,自然本自圓成!

附言:我們不應將空性的洞見視爲比非二元光明的洞見“更高”。它們只是因不同條件而顯現的不同洞見。對某些修行者而言,關於我們空性本質的洞見,會先於非二元光明而來。若需對空性有更詳細的概念性理解,請閱讀 Greg Goode 博士的文章《非二元的空性》。


Soh 注:2020 年更新

以下是一些與本文相關的引用。

“對我來說,無我的偈頌仍然是最好的觸發點……哈哈。它讓我們清楚看到無我是自然狀態。一直如此,並且毫不費力地如此。它揭示了‘無明是如何’矇蔽雙眼,並對我們稱之爲‘事物和現象’的分離性與實質性產生誤解。並且了悟到,知見自上而下地都在指向這個無我的真理,說明心智如何混淆並將世俗存在誤認爲真實存在。緣起和空性是平衡和中和所有心造世俗性的渡筏,如此心便能安息於自然的放鬆與平衡,看見所有生起都是自然本自圓成的。”
— John Tan, 2019

“‘無我’是一法印而不是一個階段的洞見必須生起,以進一步進入‘毫不費力’模式。也就是說,無我是所有體驗的基底,並且一直如此,沒有‘我’。於見,始終僅有見;於聞,始終僅有聲;於思,始終僅有念。無需費力,且從未有過一個‘我’。”
— John Tan, 2009

“你需要如以下鏈接中所述正確地參究無我:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/07/anatta-is-dharma-seal-or-truth-that-is.html 以及 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/08/bahiya-sutta-must-be-understood-from.html(將無我看作法印,而不僅僅是一種無心狀態)”
— Soh, 2020

“若未徹底突破無我的第一和第二首偈頌,在 AtR 的定義中就不會有對真正無我的徹底或清晰證悟。雖然在 2010 年 10 月初步突破時,第二首對我來說更清晰,但在接下來的幾個月裏,第一首偈頌也很快變得更清晰,並進一步消融了各種根基,包括對‘此地/當下’的非常微妙執著,以及任何對心的微細殘留參照。”
— Soh, 2020

關於主體與客體的討論

TD Unmanifest:

我在修習中發現,空掉主體比空掉客體“更容易”。因此用 AtR 的話來說,也就是修第一首偈頌比修第二首偈頌容易。空掉五蘊和界(dhatus)對於深化無我證悟的洞見非常有幫助。致力於根除殘留在“我、我所”之中的業力傾向。然而,我很好奇有哪些修習能夠對客體進行同樣的參透,這與第二首偈頌、臨在、緣起和一法究盡的空性有關。

Soh Wei Yu:

兩首無我偈都是關於無我,而非五蘊的空性。

TD Unmanifest:

啊,我誤解了關於第二首偈頌的那段內容,以爲它專注於五蘊和客體:

“當‘主體’消失時,體驗成爲非二元,但我們忘記了‘客體’。當客體被進一步空掉時,我們見到法身(Dharmakaya)。要清楚地看見:對於首先被穿透的‘主體’來說,它只是一個統攝五蘊的標籤;但下一個要被否定的層次,是我們正在空掉的臨在——不是一個標籤,而是本性上非二元的臨在本身。”

這在深化無我方面進展得很好,但我是從客體與主體的角度進行參究的。所以小我/大我(self/Self)繼續無處可尋,且總是已經如此。覺知的客體看似“真實”,而自我顯然不是,只是五蘊等等。

Soh Wei Yu:

那是在提醒要將無我的洞見應用於一切現象。這兩首偈頌針對的是小我/大我(self/Self)的幻相。但之後必須把它應用於一切現象,以證得法我空與人我空。就像“無風,僅有吹”的洞見一樣(https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/08/the-wind-is-blowing.html),必須應用到所有現象,包括運動等等。

“我是在告訴你,第一和第二首偈頌必須齊頭並進,即使在開始時,才能對無我有真正的洞見。你必須在無我中具備這兩個方面的洞見。那麼什麼是無我?這意味著當你參透無主宰者時,你實際上是在發展你的直接洞見。那不是將任何額外的東西實體化。那是對真如的直接洞見。因此,當你看到‘大我’(Self)時,除了五蘊別無他物。當你看到‘天氣’時,只有變化著的雲、雨……當你看到‘身體’時,你看到不斷變化的感受。當你聽到聲音時,你看到緣起(DO),然後你會看到人我空和法我空如何只是同一個洞見,以及爲什麼那會導致一合相(yi4 he2 xiang4; one totality/composite of appearance)。如果沒有洞見卻執著於言詞,你就錯失了精髓。”
— John Tan, 2011

對話 — 2020 年 7 月 27 日

John Tan:對我來說,能-作-所(主體-行動-客體)範式只是用來幫助表達和理解世界的結構。我不那樣看。我視其爲顯現-條件的一法究盡,而不是顯現和條件。

Soh Wei Yu:你指的是 TD Unmanifest 嗎?

John Tan:是的。如果你視客體與主體分離,或者視現象與心分離,無論你如何解構,都只是一種知解。你不會有對任何東西的直接品嚐。當然,沒有辦法知曉所有涉及的條件。僅僅是說明顯現不是憑空而生的。當你經歷解構主體與客體(能與所)的過程時,也有一種空廓感……那種體驗就像身心脫落。當你說車是空的,但你正坐在裏面……你到底想表達什麼?這和“無風,僅有吹”是一樣的……或者閃電在閃……或者春去夏來……意思是把同樣的洞見應用於萬事萬物。不僅僅是自我,甚至包含運動。因此,當你的心始終在看透種種概念構建時,會發生什麼?當你說車是空的,卻又正坐在車上時,告訴我,這是什麼意思?你看穿了這個構造,然後發生了什麼?當你看穿正在吹的風時……發生了什麼?當你看穿夏天或天氣時,發生了什麼?或者我說:閃電正在閃;當你真正看穿那道閃電時……

Soh Wei Yu:只剩下純粹的顯現……沒有任何實體化。

John Tan:別去思考,直接體驗……這會把你逼進非概念狀態。就像 PCE 的體驗一樣……事實上,當你開始時會非常正念、非常警覺……你開始感到“吹”本身……對嗎?當我說沒有閃電在閃時……你注視那閃爍。對嗎?你是否真的加以修持或留心體察,而不僅僅隨口說一句?當你說沒有夏天時,你是在體驗熱、溼度等等。意思是你看穿了概念構建,但你不能只是思考。當我說沒有車時,我觸摸這輛車……它的質地、顏色、皮革、輪胎……如果你持續、無間斷地保持這種方式,會發生什麼?

Soh Wei Yu:一切都只是生機勃勃的自然臨在,但沒有主體或客體。就像我看到的不是堅實物體,而只是閃耀、充滿生機的色彩作爲生動而空的臨在。還有聲音、感覺等等。

John Tan:是的。那取決於體驗那些感覺或顯現本身的深度。

TD Unmanifest:這非常有幫助,謝謝你。我剛散步回來,用了這些指引去感受所指爲何。我過去太專注於對客體的解構了,而忽略了感受/看見那直接的生機活力。多謝 Soh,也請代我向 John Tan 致謝。

Kyle Dixon 論空性

“自性(svabhāva)好比一個擁有諸特徵的核心實體。就像電線桿擁有高大、圓柱形、木質、棕色等等特徵。感知自性,就是將電線桿感知爲一個實體,一個擁有這些特徵的東西。

證悟空性,就是在體驗上認出,並不存在一個擁有這些特徵的實體,存在的只有特徵本身;而一旦核心實體不復存在,這些特徵也就不再成其爲特徵。那裏沒有實體,沒有一個處於某個距離或位置上的客體。

空性確實意味著自性不存在,但它不是四句破(catuṣkoṭi)第二邊所說的那種真實不存在。它是一種從始至終、從未有過實體的了悟。它是‘不存在’嗎?算是吧,因爲找不到一個實存實體,而這個實體一直都是謬誤。但是,一個從一開始就未曾生起的東西,怎麼會實際上缺乏存在性呢?這就是遠離二邊的中道如何建立。”
— Kyle Dixon, 2022

Kyle Dixon 寫道:中道實際上是離於“存在”與“不存在”這兩種錯覺。執著於事物存在(無論是有爲法還是無爲法)是常見;執著於事物不存在是斷見。斷滅論則是相信某個存在的東西轉成了不存在。

避免這些極端的方法就是空性,它意味著:缺乏固有存在、遠離二邊、無生、緣起。所有這些定義都是同義的。緣起是正確的世俗諦知見,引導人證得勝義諦知見,也就是空性。許多人誤將空性理解爲一種否定見解,但它實際上是避免存在、不存在、亦有亦無、非有非無等極端的正確中道知見。

總而言之,這個主題真的沒有辦法用 ELI5(像給五歲孩子解釋那樣)的方式講清;你只能繼續提問。理解之後它很簡單,但真正理解緣起的人非常、非常少。

以下是我不久前爲討論緣起而寫的一組內容:

“獨立生起”的一般定義,是認爲事物被賦予了自身的自體/本質(svabhāva)或自我(ātman)。爲了使某物能夠獨立生起,它必須是無條件、獨立且無原因的;但在佛教看來這是不可能的。就空性而言,正確的世俗諦知見即是緣起。因此,爲了有客體、人、地點、事物等等,它們必須依因與緣而有;這意味著它們不能離開這些因緣而存在。若條件被移除,客體不會留存。

過去的成就者曾說:既然一物只有依因而生、依緣而住,並在因緣缺失時不成立,那麼它怎麼能說是存在的?若一個客體要固有地存在,它就必須直接成立,獨立於因緣,獨立於屬性、特徵和組成部分。然而,我們找不到獨立於這些因素之外的固有客體;這一事實的含義是:同樣也找不到存在於這些因素之中的固有客體。客體“本身”是不可得的。我們找到的只是一個被安立的部分集合;這些部分事實上並未在離開自身之外創造出任何東西,而且這些部分本身也同樣只是任意安立。因爲若沒有固有存在的客體,也就不可能有固有的部分、特徵或屬性。因此,客體只是一個有用的世俗假名;它的有效性由其功能效用來衡量。除此世俗名稱之外,找不到任何潛藏其下的固有客體。

緣起指向的是一種隱含的相互依存:所謂有爲的“事物”,只是因誤認其他有爲事物而被暗示性地成立;因此,每個“事物”同時是彼此及其他一切的因與果。緣起並不是說真實成立的法依賴於其他真實存在的法,比如好像有一個由真實存在的部件構成的客體,而這些部件又由更小的真實部件(如原子)構成。那當然是一種看待緣起的方式,但會被視爲非常粗糙的實在論/本質論知見,會微細地助長事物有自體或本質的感覺。

因此,緣起所指出的是:離開我們賦予所謂客體的種種世俗特徵,找不到固有客體;在這些特徵之中,同樣找不到固有客體。另一方面,若就這些特徵彼此的關係而言,也找不到固有客體,因爲每一方只有在與另一方對比時才有效;一旦發現其中一方缺乏固有性,另一方的有效性也同時被動搖。我們的體驗只是由無根據推斷構成的相互依存的世俗概念構建。

通過這種方式,作爲一個本質性核心“事物”的客體“本身”是不可得的。我們找到的只是一個被安立的部分集合;這些部分事實上並未在離開自身之外創造出任何東西,而且這些部分本身也同樣只是任意安立。因爲若沒有固有存在的客體,也就不可能有固有的部分、特徵或屬性。

因此,舉例說,如果一張桌子真正固有地存在,意思是它獨立存在,那麼我們就應當能夠獨立於它的各種特徵而找到那張桌子。桌子應能獨立於被觀察而存在,獨立於它的顏色或質地,獨立於它的部件和零件,獨立於它的世俗名稱,獨立於周圍環境等等。相反,如果觀察——或例如覺知——真正存在,我們同樣應能獨立於對桌子、周圍環境等的感知而找到它。但不存在一個桌子實際上“是”或“擁有”的本質性、“核心”性質;這同樣適用於覺知和任何其他事物。

對於被無明纏繞的衆生,概念假立和世俗語言被誤認爲指向真實的人、地點、事物等等。當無明被破除時,人可以自由使用世俗語言,而不會產生困惑,因爲智慧直接看清無明的本來面目。在佛教中,世俗性可以作爲交流工具而被使用,因此我們可以稱爲 John Doe 或 Mary Smith,樹、石頭、汽車也可以作爲名稱而成立。世俗性只是一個有用的工具,並不指向它自身之外的任何東西。世俗諦是相對的——詞語、概念、想法、人、地點、事物等等——並與勝義諦,也就是空性,相對。

所有屬於“有爲”範疇的顯現現象——也就是符合四邊(存在、不存在、亦有亦無、非有非無)中一邊或多邊的現象——都是緣起的。我們知道這是如此,因爲沒有任何不依賴因緣而生起的現象。

因緣所生法,
我說即是空;
亦爲是假名,
亦是中道義。
未曾有一法,
不從因緣生。
是故一切法,
無不是空者。
—— 龍樹菩薩

Soh 在回覆某人的問題時引用道:

“根據中道知見,宗喀巴大師引用了龍樹菩薩的《六十正理論》和月稱菩薩的《六十正理論釋》。

龍樹菩薩:
緣起所生者,非爲自性生;
此乃通達真實的無上智者(佛陀)所宣說。

月稱菩薩:
(實在論對手說:)如果(如你所說)凡是緣起生起的事物甚至未曾誕生,那麼爲什麼(中觀師)說它無生?但如果你(中觀師)有理由說(此物)無生,那麼你就不應說它“緣起”。因此,由於相互矛盾,(你所說)並不成立。

(中觀師以悲憫的感嘆回應:)
唉!因爲你們無耳無心,竟向我們提出如此嚴厲的挑戰!當我們說任何緣起之物,如鏡像一般,並非因自有本性而生起——此時哪裏還有與我們爭論的可能!”
——摘自《平靜自心與辨別真實:佛教禪修與中道知見》(Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View)

只有聲音

Geovani Geo 寫道:
我們聽到了聲音。直接且深植於內的習氣立刻說:“聽聞”。但這其中有一個謬誤。只有聲音。究極而言,沒有聞者,也沒有所謂的“聽聞”。所有其他感官也是一樣。一個中心化的、擴張的、或零維度的固有感知者或覺知者,是一種幻相。

Thusness/John Tan:
非常好。這意味著兩首偈頌都已經清晰了。於聞,無聞者。於聞,只有聲音。沒有所謂的“聽聞”。

標籤:無我, Geovani Geo

John Tan 2022:念頭的重量

John Tan 在 2022 年寫道:

“……

念頭的重量 — 第1部分

參究時,不要只讓參究停留在心理推理的練習上。例如:

所顯現的既非“內在”也非“外在”。因爲“內在性”概念依賴於“外在性”概念;沒有其中任何一方,都不可能生起既非內也非外的感覺。因此,這兩個概念都只是世俗的,它們是緣起的。

不要讓參究僅僅停留在這種水平。如果這樣做,充其量這種自由只會停留在心智層面——一種明晰、純粹、乾淨的狀態。它與修習純然注意沒有什麼不同,儘管可能會產生關於概念如何使心智繁雜的洞見。

而是要更進一步,直接與我們的感覺、念頭、氣味、顏色、味道、聲音聯繫起來,並問:

“念頭既不在我們的頭腦內也不在頭腦外,是什麼意思?”

看透這一點將更具穿透力。它會作爲一種即時鮮活的生活體驗,帶來深深的如幻感與神祕敬畏。

……

念頭的重量 — 第2部分

念頭有多重?
它們的根在哪裏?

在靈性圈子裏,經常會聽到“‘我’只是一個念頭”或“念頭是空的、如虛空般,沒有重量或根”這樣的說法。

雖然應該指出“念頭”無根和如虛空般的性質,但絕不能被誤導去認爲自己看透了“任何東西”,更別說連根拔起根深蒂固的“我/我的”、“身/心”、“空間/時間”等概念性觀念。

所以重點還必須放在硬幣的另一面:“念頭”像黑洞一樣驚人地沉重(如針孔般大小,卻有恆星般重量);它們所攜帶的概念“根系”滲透我們的整個身心並無處不在。

念頭的“根”無處可尋,也意味著它們可以在任何地方、在所有地方被找到,分佈在三世十方——用現代語境說,跨越多重宇宙的不同時間線。換句話說:“此生故彼生”。

……

在無我中,我們看穿自我是一種心理構念,踏上了解構之旅,將自己從所有心理構念中解放出來:從自我到所有現象以及它們之間的關係。

然而,當我們看到緣起時,沒有任何東西被消除。
概念仍在,部分仍在,因果仍在,自我仍在,他人仍在……一切仍在,只是關於“本質”的錯誤知見被捨棄了。

不再把它們看成具有本質存在,而是了知它們是緣起的;凡緣起者,皆遠離四對極端(即龍樹的八不)。

若不理解緣起和空性,免於一切戲論的自然本自圓成就會被歪曲。”

另見:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2013/04/daniel-post-on-anattaemptiness.html(注意:其中表達了空性的兩個層面。你能說出它們是什麼嗎?)

John Tan 也寫道:“當你談論無主宰者與無基底的知見時,必須清楚它在非實體主義視角中的邏輯含義,而不是用實體主義透鏡。

缺乏這種合理邏輯基礎支持而過度強調體驗,是一種主要障礙,尤其是在現代世界。你將無法在自我敞開的道路上走得很遠。

這意味著你不能只是把空性或無固有存在當作公理接受,而必須清楚看到:若所顯現的事物如此這般,那麼它是站不住腳的。

審視你所有體驗和邏輯,直到你不是通過信心,而是通過無懈可擊的邏輯去理解,並用實際體驗驗證它。

然後心便能自行解脫。”

若在閱讀本文後想進一步探索空性,我強烈建議閱讀並參究以下鏈接中的所有內容,以及其中所鏈接的其他文章:
無我之後的建議彙編(Compilation of Post Anatta Advise)
John Tan 的 YouTube 視頻與音頻:緣起與空性的統一


Soh 注:2024 年更新:避免能量失衡

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/02/avoiding-energy-imbalances.html

Soh:
給所有人的重要信息。

無我的兩首偈頌與此有關:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/06/pellucid-no-self-non-doership.html

爲什麼兩首偈頌都重要

[晚上 8:40, 6/9/2021] John Tan:大圓滿裏有一個詞叫“自然臨在”(spontaneous presence)。我不知道它在大圓滿中的確切含義,但這個短語與那兩首偈頌的兩種體驗密切相關:
1. 無造作者 = 自發的
2. 純粹顯現作爲臨在

Soh:
你會看到我(Soh)在 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/04/why-awakening-is-so-worth-it.html 中寫了這兩個層面。

如果沒有像本文 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html 所說的那樣證悟無我的第二首偈頌,在 AtR 中就不被認爲是真正的無我(anatman / no-self)證悟。相關鏈接:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/06/pellucid-no-self-non-doership.htmlhttps://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/07/i-was-having-conversation-with-someone.htmlhttps://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/02/the-transient-universe-has-heart.htmlhttps://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/05/nice-advice-and-expression-of-anatta-in.html

我也曾評論說,99%的時候,那些說自己證得了無我的人,僅僅體驗到無造作者層面,而不是真正的非二元無我證悟。另見:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html

根據我與成千上萬個體討論的經驗,我觀察到,聲稱認識到非二元——內外無別,或者沒有自我——並不一定意味著真正證悟無我,或獲得真實的非二元體驗或洞見。很多時候,此人只是採用特定行話或模仿他人,誤以爲自己已達到類似的理解水平;實際上,他們的體驗可能只是非個人化與無造作者的感覺,而不是真正的非二元體驗或洞見。

我(Soh)曾問 John Tan 他是否認爲某位老師已經證悟無我,John 回答說:“沒有對其光明的驗證,沒有認出顯現即是自身的光明,也沒有清楚指出世俗構造如何(Soh:被看透並釋放)被看穿與釋放。那是什麼讓你得出那個結論的?”

此外,在評論某位老師的文章時,John Tan 寫道,

“當我們說‘心即是大地’時,第一步是在更進一步之前理解和品嚐心是什麼。

如果教法不教導和品嚐什麼是心,那就只是華麗辭藻和浮誇言辭。

接下來必須指出什麼是‘大地’?這個‘大地’在哪裏?是泥土、地面、花朵、空氣、建築,還是世俗世界?

然後談談他們一直在說的一法究盡是什麼?

然後是心與一法究盡的整合,那就是 +A。”

然而,這並不意味著無我的第二首偈頌比第一首更重要。事實上,在悟入無我的第二首偈頌、認出一切顯現皆是超越能-作-所(主體-行動-客體)範式的清澈光明之後,深入探究第一首偈頌至關重要。正如 John Tan 所說,不應總是強調臨在[後無我],而應強調那光明的本質。同樣,當我們向人們談論無我時,不僅要談論那光明臨在,也要談論無造作者。

需要說明的是:光明本身不是問題。問題在於不成熟地面對光明時,可能伴隨微細的自我造作、收縮、過度專注或實體化。當無我的兩首偈頌共同成熟時,光明被認出爲毫不費力、自行生起而空;這會自然放鬆那種集中、抓取或強化體驗的傾向。

無造作者、毫不費力與一法究盡

一切自行生起,沒有造作者或主宰者,就像呼吸與心跳一樣自然。徹底穿透這一點,就會完全自發、毫不費力並得以釋放。自然的光明是完全毫不費力的,根本無需絲毫勤作。讓對無我(anatman)和空性的深刻洞見帶你進入自行解脫與自然本自圓成,並消解用力之病,以及對光明的微細過度專注或執著。正如 John Tan 之前也說過的,重要的是不要過度強調光明(以免導致能量失衡的不適後果),而必須以無造作者的第一首偈頌來補足。他還補充說,在非二元之後,一個人的修習必須放鬆而開放、無實有感而自由——自然而開放、輕盈、放鬆、毫不費力,然後參究毫不費力。開放和放鬆應在修習中逐漸建立爲一種動能。此外,正如 John Tan 所說,我們必須理解無造作者與一法究盡之間的關係——允許種種情境的整體徹底發揮其自身。從硬幣的一面看,這是光明完全的“毫不費力”;從另一面看,這是諸條件整體的一法究盡。

Satsang Nathan 的視頻很好地表達了無我中無造作者的層面。請參閱:Satsang Nathan Videos

John Tan 之前也警告過:“你需要非常深地切入空性或無主宰者,以防止未來的問題。這意味著你必須真正克服自我感;否則,你人生後期會出現問題。你必須修習直到作爲主體覺知的自我感被充分解構,至少解構到一種無主宰者的狀態。否則你無法取得進一步進展。如果不這樣做,你以後可能會面臨比[某位經歷嚴重能量失衡的人]所經歷的還要糟糕的問題。還記得我告訴過你的 Actual Freedom 社羣的 Richard 嗎?

“專注於無造作者和空性,直到你的整個身心發展出一種自動釋放的強大動能。這需要你顛覆關於‘本質’的知見,這樣你的身心才能從自身的習氣性制約中釋放出來。如果你專注於體驗,而沒有空性如何使人解脫的堅實而穩定的清晰作爲支持,臨在的強度可能會變得如此強烈,以至於你後來無法應對。”

動能與持續修習

需要強調的是:在修習中建立上述動能至關重要。轉述 John Tan 的話來說:“你必須進行規律修習,避免自命不凡的智慧,直到某種動能建立起來。只有到那時,你才有希望克服與 x 的問題相關的挑戰。我的建議是真誠的;你還沒有親身經歷這些問題,但當你經歷時,你就會明白掌握這門藝術的重要性。

如果你堅持禪修,無論是在開放身心上,還是在日常生活中,最終都會發展出一種動能。即使挑戰出現,如果你能設法保持冷靜並讓這種動能引導你,你會發現自己有能力克服它們。

這類似於放下的藝術,儘管很難有效表達。我們的自然傾向偏向執著,不管我們如何試圖說服自己並非如此。這就是爲什麼持續不斷的修習至關重要。

你可能整天討論免於一切戲論、自然狀態和聲音,甚至也許獲得一些洞見;然而當你因各種原因面對這些問題時,所有執著都會浮現。

對死亡、健康和個人異常的恐懼都會出現。你的心會掙扎著釋放這些執著。”

放鬆用力與過度專注

John Tan 也曾告訴 X:“你有很好的福報……只要放鬆,並理解無自性也意味著毫不費力;不要專注,不要集中。只需在無我洞見之後,精煉關於顯現就是自身光明的知見與理解。”

John 也曾寫給我們的朋友 X:“可以克服。我以前在 I AM 之後,因爲過度專注而有非常強烈的能量失衡干擾。

目前,我認爲最好先通過分散注意、轉移注意力等方式讓身心平靜下來……身心在非常微細的層面上非常敏感;隱藏的恐懼會直接動搖你的整個平衡。

藥物確實有幫助,我認爲你應該用藥。

我們必須非常小心。有一種心的放鬆會帶來更多警覺,也有一種放鬆是通過克服煩惱(例如恐懼)而使心安於平靜。

當我們處於後一種狀態時,就能安住,並在平衡中回應因緣。”

John 以前也寫信給我說:“先關注‘毫不費力’。然後以後,當你釋放時,你可以放下念頭,讓該發生的事情作爲發生而發生……但你後來也許會覺得無法集中注意力,那也沒關係……慢慢地、溫柔地憶起那些顯現都是自身的光明,而光明的本質超越勤作……先去習慣它。

凡有所顯現,就其本性而言皆自行解脫。”

過度專注於光明與能量失衡

如果這方面的洞見和修習不成熟,光明顯得強大,而人在潛意識裏微細地過度專注於光明,就有可能遭遇痛苦的能量失衡,導致能量卡在眉心輪、嚴重緊張、頭痛、失眠(字面上整夜完全無法入睡,整夜處於超級清醒狀態,有些人錯把這當成成就)、像恐慌發作一樣的能量波(我說“像”,因爲那更多是身體上的恐懼,而不是心理上的恐懼,是一種在全身遊走的非常緊張且“神經質”的身體感受),甚至更糟的癥狀。我在 2019 年曾經歷過 7 天這樣的不愉快遭遇,詳見 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/03/the-magical-fairytale-like-wonderland.html。這導致所謂的“禪病”,醫生無法單獨治癒;我在原版 AtR 指南中也專門以一整章探討此題。我很幸運能夠通過改變修習方式而沒有再次觸發類似事件,但也看到其他人經歷類似情況。因此,我由衷希望人們不要在修習上走錯方向。請多保重,並好好修行。

大圓滿提醒與合格指導

也許如果你對大圓滿感興趣,可以從大圓滿導師 Acarya Malcolm Smith 那裏接受傳承和教法(他也同樣強調無我中無造作者與光明顯現的毫不費力這個關鍵層面,以及對無我兩首偈頌的整合——這沒有出現在他的公開著作中,而是在我參加過的訂閱者在線教學中),並獲取《大圓滿無上之源》(The Supreme Source)一書,書中清晰闡述了全體臨在之自然本自圓成、自行生起本質的徹底毫不費力。但請不要自行摸索(DIY)大圓滿,因爲那極具誤導性;應在那個傳統中尋找優秀老師(例如 Acarya Malcolm)。你可以觀看這個 YouTube 視頻(強烈推薦),瞭解 Sim Pern Chong 在 AtR 羣組中推薦的 Acarya Malcolm 大圓滿教法:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/09/talk-on-buddhahood-in-this-life.html。此外,Malcolm 的一些文章可見:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html。想要實修《大圓滿無上之源》這本書,必須得到合格大圓滿導師的灌頂、直指和指導,當然也絕不能誤認爲無需修行的懶散或新不二論(neo-Advaita)的虛無主義。案例分析:https://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2015/08/ground-path-fruition_13.html

這是 John Tan 分享的一段很好的視頻:

心、注意力、能量與身體

心、注意力、能量、專注,是一體的。

當覺知修行者以集中的方式練習時,可能導致能量失衡,能量卡在眉心輪。對於覺知修行者來說,這非常普遍:不是眉心輪堵塞,就是有時心輪堵塞。

然而,無我(anatman)本身的洞見非常安全;事實上,在無我完全落實時,不可能存在能量失衡。能量失衡全都與微細自我造作有關。這就是爲什麼無我的兩首偈頌完全成熟並落實(不偏向第二首)能夠解決能量失衡。

所以你的修習應把心帶到並安住於丹田。能量應該流動,不應卡在頭上。關注身體有助於克服能量失衡。

參見寶瓶氣:
摘自 [鏈接已略去]

[上午 11:46, 9/5/2020] John Tan:我喜歡他的描述,相當不錯,但可能會導致能量失衡。最好是練習呼吸練習,並學習將能量調節至平靜……

寶瓶氣(Vase Breathing)

Soh 注:
通過呼吸練習調節能量的一個好方法,是練習寶瓶氣。以下摘自措尼仁波切(Tsoknyi Rinpoche)的《敞開心扉》(Open Mind, Open Heart):

“寶瓶氣

幫助這位女士和無數其他人應對情緒的方法之一,是一種幫助我們把“氣”(lung)拉回其中心或“家”的修習。爲此,我們使用一種特殊呼吸技巧作爲工具,因爲呼吸是微細風能(lung / rlung)的身體對應。

這項技巧稱爲寶瓶氣,它涉及比許多瑜伽或其他課程常教的橫膈膜深呼吸還要更深的呼吸。

技巧本身相當簡單。首先,緩慢而完全地呼氣,儘可能讓腹部肌肉貼近脊柱。然後緩慢吸氣,想象你正把呼吸吸入肚臍下方約四指寬、剛好在恥骨上方的區域。這個區域形狀有點像瓶子,所以稱爲寶瓶氣。當然,你並不是真的把呼吸吸到那裏,但通過把注意力集中在那裏,會發現吸氣比平時更深一些,並體驗到那個瓶子區域有更多擴張感。

繼續吸氣並將注意力向下引時,你的“氣”會逐漸開始向下移動,並在那裏安住。讓呼吸在瓶子區域停留幾秒鐘——不要等到呼氣衝動變得急迫——然後慢慢呼出。

如此緩慢呼吸三四次,徹底呼氣,然後吸氣到寶瓶區域。在第三或第四次吸氣後,在呼氣結束時,試著在寶瓶區域保留一點點——也許百分之十——的呼吸,極其輕柔地專注於讓一小部分“氣”保持在原處。

現在試試看。

徹底呼氣,然後向寶瓶區域緩慢、輕柔地呼吸三四次,在最後一次呼氣時,把一點點呼吸保留在寶瓶區域。這樣保持大約十分鐘。

感覺如何?

也許有點不舒服。有些人說這樣引導呼吸很困難;另一些人則說,這讓他們獲得一種從未有過的平靜和居中感。

寶瓶氣若每天練習十分鐘甚至二十分鍾,能成爲發展對自身感受的覺知、並學會在日常活動中與它們共處的直接方法。當我們的“氣”安住在其家中時,我們的身體、感受和念頭會逐漸找到一種健康的平衡。馬與騎手以一種非常放鬆、自然的方式協同工作,誰也不試圖奪取控制權或把對方逼瘋。在這個過程中,我們會發現,與恐懼、痛苦、焦慮、憤怒、不安等相關的微細身體模式逐漸鬆開,心智與感受之間出現了一點空間。

最終目標是在一整天中,在所有活動中——走路、說話、喫飯、喝水、開車時——都能讓那一小部分呼吸保持在寶瓶區域內。有些人短時間練習後會自動產生這種能力;另一些人可能需要更多時間。

我必須承認,即使練習多年後,我有時仍會失去與大本營的聯繫,尤其遇到快節奏的人時。我自己也有點快,遇到其他快節奏的人會成爲一種微細的身體刺激;我會捲入他們那種不安和錯位的能量中,於是變得有些不安、緊張,有時甚至焦慮。因此,我會做一次提醒式呼吸:徹底呼氣,向下呼吸到寶瓶區域,然後再呼氣,留一點呼吸在“氣”的家中。”

John Tan 的進一步提醒

John Tan 也說道:

“能量失衡與我們通常所說的‘物理’非常相關。靈性中的能量在現代世俗用法中就是‘物理’的各個方面,只是行話不同。所以去鍛鍊,並學習開放和毫不費力的藝術,開放我們的身體,保持務實和真誠。

寶瓶氣等練習都很好,但需要紀律、堅持和毅力,而不是三分鐘熱度。如果以勤勉而不帶尋求神奇或童話式結果的心態去練習,它一定會有益處。”

對話 — 2020 年 6 月 29 日

John Tan:Z先生很注重體驗,暫時沒必要在空性、現象之無生的問題上搞得太理論化。

而是要讓他把能量和光明轉移到身體上……整個身體……雖然背景消失了,你可能會認爲所有六根都處於平等光明中,但這在即時狀態中遠非真相,並導致所有能量失衡。

放鬆進入自然狀態,並感受遍布整個身體的能量光明。不是通過思考。觸摸任何東西,觸摸腳趾、腿,去感受它們。那就是你的心……哈哈……你能明白嗎?

山即是心,草即是心,一切即是心。那是經由視覺和意門而體會;也要去感受身體、腳趾和手指,觸摸它們。它們就是心。所以你在即時狀態下能明白這點嗎?

至於睡眠,不用太擔心,它會發生。多去感受,少用念頭,讓整個身體成爲一種觸覺感,不是通過思考,而是去感受並觸摸。所以不要以爲當“一切唯心”與“無我”的洞見生起時,就意味著你已經徹底契入“一切唯心”。如果你不能擁抱並感覺一切皆是心,你如何消除那個被稱爲“心”的共同項,並進入無心——這才是無我的自然狀態。

標籤:無我,能量 |

關於嚴重能量失衡的注意事項

涉及抑鬱、焦慮和創傷的嚴重能量失衡,應尋求精神科醫生和心理學家的專家幫助,必要時也可以藥物作爲支持。現代醫學可以是康復中至關重要的一部分,絕不應該被低估。如果你表現出可能與這些相關的癥狀,應由專業人士檢查。

就 Soh 在 2019 年持續 7 天的能量失衡而言,它與心理問題無關,因爲除了身體上的緊張感外,沒有抑鬱、悲傷情緒或心理焦慮,也不涉及創傷;而是因爲光明的極端強烈——一種貫穿白天並持續到睡眠的強度,以及一種難以化解的過度專注和緊張能量模式。話雖如此,如果你不確定,最好還是去檢查。此外,也可以看 Judith Blackstone 的書,書中深入探討創傷釋放,並將其與非二元修習聯繫起來(儘管不完全基於無我修習,但仍值得一讀)。參見:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/06/good-book-on-healing-trauma-and-nondual.html

John Tan 也說道:“由工作、身體外貌或缺乏家庭支持等引起的抑鬱癥,與比如說那些關於‘I AM’的問題之間存在很大差異。那些與外貌、工作壓力或學習等相關的焦慮,若相應問題得到解決,就會逐漸消散。但是有一些像‘I AM’這樣的問題,也就是你的第一個直接念頭,如此親密、如此直接,這些不容易‘擺脫’。”

“當身體還沒有準備好時,有些能量失衡可能與某些能量關口的打開有關。”

對話 — 2024 年 6 月 6 日

John Tan:是的,不要讓世俗成就阻礙一個人的修習;是的,無我僅僅是開始。一旦我們把顯現認出爲自身的光明,就必須窮盡心與現象。雖然我不是大圓滿或大手印修行者,但我能理解並直覺到,無我的自然狀態完全落實時,也非常類似於虹光身那樣的結果。

Soh Wei Yu:我明白了……

John Tan:事實上,在一定程度上窮盡了心智的實體化造作之後,我們就不那麼執著於世俗,並且非常被吸引去將整個身心窮盡於光明之中。我不知道別人怎樣,但這發生在了我身上。這發生在你身上了嗎?

Soh Wei Yu:是的,我想是的。

John Tan:在這個階段,毫不費力、無爲和不抗拒是非常關鍵的,因爲只要心去反應或專注,能量就會增強,而且常常導致能量失衡。

John Tan 在 2009 年寫給一位論壇網友:

“一開始,幾乎不可能不感到二元對立。一個觀察者在觀察被觀察之物,這是我們的日常經驗,它似乎是經驗事實。因此,我們不應急於求成,而只需簡單地認出其‘原因’。導致我們以這種方式看待事物的原因稱爲‘無明’。試著理解‘無明’,不要將其視爲不知道,而要視爲一種知道的形式,一種非常深刻的‘二元認知’,而我們卻把它當成真理。然後,我們將通過兩個步驟克服這個錯誤知見:第一,強烈而堅定地建立正確知見,以取代現有的二元見與自性見;第二,在純然注意中修習觀照,以減少這些知見的束縛。在身體覺受中修習純然注意,直到身體覺受中生起非常強烈、清晰、如鏡般的感受。然後,伴隨著正確知見,非二元將會破曉。如果沒有正確知見,它很可能只會變成一面反映現象的鏡子。

修習可能需要數十年,並且旅程中常常令人沮喪和充滿挑戰。但要有信心、耐心,並保持信心;所有努力最終都會證明值得。我用來輔助自己修習的一個簡單總結:

當只有純粹的存在感時;
當覺知如鏡般顯現時;
當感覺變得純淨、清晰且明亮時;
這就是光明(Luminosity)。

當一切生起之物顯得互不相連時;
當顯現無中心地湧現時;
當現象似乎自行運作,無有主宰者時;
這就是無造作者(No Doer-ship)。

當主體與客體(能與所)的劃分被看穿爲幻相時;
當清楚了知並無一人居於念頭背後時;
當只有風景、聲音、念頭等等時;
這就是無我(Anatta)。

當現象顯現得如水晶般晶瑩剔透時;
當僅僅是無縫的一體體驗時;
當一切皆被視爲臨在時;
這就是非二元臨在(Non-dual Presence)。

當我們完全感受到現象的不可得與不可定位時;
當所有體驗皆被視爲不可抓取時;
當所有內/外、那裏/這裏、現在/然後的心智邊界消融時;
這就是空性(Emptiness)。

當萬物的相互關聯被全然感受到時;
當生起顯得偉大、毫不費力且奇妙時;
當臨在感覺如宇宙般浩瀚時;
這就是摩訶(Maha)。

當生起不被囚禁在是誰、何處與何時之中時;
當所有現象都顯得自發且毫不費力時;
當一切在任何地方、任何時候都顯得恰如其分時;
這就是自然本自圓成(Spontaneous Perfection)。

將這些視爲一切體驗的基底;
始終如此,已然如此;
這就是智慧(Wisdom)。

在任何生起的事物中體驗這個基底;
這就是修習(Practice)。

旅途愉快。”

John Tan 在 2017 年寫道:

“在幾百年(或幾千年)的發展過程中,關於這個和那個的經典卷帙浩繁……重要的是精髓……意思是,如果你深入空性教法與緣起,只要關注精髓……把它當成公案一樣對待……沒有哪一個禪宗公案能像中觀(Madhyamaka)那樣讓我們穿透得如此之深。也沒有哪個公案能像道元(Dōgen)的‘一法究盡’(total exertion)那樣,以如此神奇的方式傳達出這種被‘連接’的宏大體驗……

對我來說,只有這四個直指就足夠了:直指覺知,直指無我,直指一法究盡,以及直指空性。剩下的就是通過相逢應機(encounter)和投入的修習來深化你的洞見與了悟。”

Soh

No Awareness Does Not Mean the Denial of Awareness or Luminosity

Chinese Translation: “无觉”并不意味着否定觉知或明性

There are a couple of articles on 'No Awareness' or 'Beyond Awareness'. It must be emphasized that this does not mean the non-existence of awareness, or the denial of awareness or luminosity.

“Geovani Geo to me, to be without dual is not to subsume into one and although awareness is negated, it is not to say there is nothing. Negating the Awareness/Presence (Absolute) is not to let Awareness remain at the abstract level. When such transpersonal Awareness that exists only in wonderland is negated, the vivid radiance of presence are fully tasted in the transient appearances; zero gap and zero distance between presence and moment to moment of ordinary experiences and we realize separation has always only been conventional. Then mundane activities -- hearing, sitting, standing, seeing and sensing, become pristine and vibrant, natural and free.”– John Tan, 2020

"awareness [seen as] other than what appears is alaya." - John Tan (alaya as still a subtle state of ignorance)

2014

3 SEPTEMBER 2014

John Tan: Why is he talking about 靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness]

Soh Wei Yu: It's just the luminosity? What do you mean

John Tan: There is no denial of clarity or luminosity, it is the singling out of luminosity that is the problem. Why is luminosity luminous? It is an irrelevant question. There is no such [inherently existing] clarity. Because of inherent thought, we understand 靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness] as standalone, singled out from DO (Dependent Origination) or otherwise we are understanding it as "interaction". Or if conceptuality is a problem then non-conceptuality must be the solution. Or subsuming object into subject or subject into object… It is addressing this way of thinking, of understanding is a misperception. It is not to imply that there is no clarity… but what is clarity when it is not understood using this flawed mode of perception. In Buddhism, it is not how. It's always under what conditions such phenomena arises. So when this cause & condition persists, the phenomena will arise. First is to bring out the point to ask why appearances "arises" in Awareness is the same as asking why is awareness aware in awareness teaching. Why so? For the convention we call awareness is only ever appearances. Then address what is flawed mode of perception… As I have given above. So why does appearances appear to arise in Awareness? Because of ignorance

19 SEPTEMBER 2014

John Tan: If Buddha asks Ananda, where is mind… if mind is not outside, not inside, not in the middle, not within the body… then is he Ananda going to think that Buddha doesn't dare to affirm where is the mind? Then Ananda will never know the meaning of DO. And the problem of how inherent thought blinds one from seeing and having direct experiential insight of what is meant by freedom from extreme.

20 SEPTEMBER 2014

John Tan: When you present to 不思, you must not deny 觉 (awareness). But emphasized how 覺 (awareness) is effortlessly and marvelously manifests without the slightest sense of referencing and point of centricity and duality and subsuming… be it here, now, in, out… this can only come from realization of anatta, DO and emptiness so that the spontaneity of 相 (appearance) is realized to one's radiance clarity.

2007

Thusness: Buddhism stresses more on direct experience. There is no-self apart from the arising and ceasing

AEN: I see…

Thusness: And from arising and ceasing one sees the emptiness nature of 'Self'. There is Witnessing. Witnessing is the manifestation. There is no witness witnessing manifestation. That is Buddhism. I have always said it is not the denial of eternal witness. But what exactly is that eternal witness? It is the real understanding of eternal witness.

AEN: Yes, I thought so. So it's something like David Carse, right?

Thusness: Without the 'seeing' and 'veil' of momentum, of reacting to propensities.

AEN: Emptiness, yet luminous I see.

Thusness: However when one quote what buddha said, does he understand first of all. Is he seeing eternal witness as in the advaita?

AEN: He's probably confused

Thusness: Or is he seeing free from propensities.

AEN: He never explicitly mention but I believe his understanding is something like that

Thusness: So there is no point quoting if it is not seen.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Otherwise it is just saying the atman view again. So you should be very clear by now… and not to be confused.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: What have I told you? You have also written in your blog. What is eternal witness? It is the manifestation… moment to moment of arising. Does one see with the propensities and what is really it? That is more important. I have said so many times that the experience is correct but the understanding is wrong. Wrong view. And how perception influence experience and wrong understanding. So don't quote here and there with just a snap shot… Be very very clear and know with wisdom so that you will know what is right and wrong view. Otherwise you will be reading this and get confused with that. It is not to deny the existence of the luminosity, the knowingness. But rather to have the correct view of what consciousness is. Like non-dual, I said there is no witness apart from the manifestation, the witness is really the manifestation. This is the first part. Since the witness is the manifestation, how is it so? How is the one is really the many?

AEN: Conditions?

Thusness: Saying that the one is the many is already wrong. This is using conventional way of expression. For in reality, there is no such thing of the 'one' and the many. There is only arising and ceasing due to emptiness nature. And the arising and ceasing itself is the clarity. There is no clarity apart from the phenomena. If we experience non-dual like Ken Wilber and talk about the atman. Though the experience is true, the understanding is wrong. This is similar to "I AM". Except that it is higher form of experience. It is non-dual.

19 OCTOBER 2008

Thusness: Yes. Actually practice is not to deny this 'Jue' (awareness). The way you explained as if 'there is no Awareness'. People at times mistaken what you are trying to convey, but to correctly understand this 'jue' so that it can be experienced from all moments effortlessly. But when a practitioner heard that it is not 'IT', they immediately began to worry because it is their most precious state. All the phases written is about this 'Jue' or Awareness. However what Awareness really is isn't correctly experienced. Because it isn't correctly experienced, we say that 'Awareness that you try to keep' does not exist in such a way. It does not mean there is no Awareness.

2010

Thusness: It is not that there is no awareness. It is understanding awareness not from a subject/object view. Not from an inherent view. That is dissolving subject/object understanding into events, action, karma. Then we gradually understand that the 'feeling' of someone there is really just a 'sensation' of an inherent view. Means a 'sensation', a 'thought' of an inherent view :P. How this lead to liberation requires the direct experience. So liberation it is not freedom from 'self' but freedom from 'inherent view'

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Get it? But it is important to experience luminosity

27 MARCH 2010

Thusness: Not bad for self-enquiry

AEN: I see… By the way what do you think Lucky and Chandrakirti is trying to convey

Thusness: Those quotes weren't really well translated in my opinion. What needs be understood is 'No I' is not to deny Witnessing consciousness. And 'No Phenomena' is not to deny Phenomena. It is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: When you hear sound, you cannot deny it… can you?

AEN: Yes

Thusness: So what are you denying? When you experience the Witness as you described in your thread 'certainty of being', how can you deny this realization? So what is does 'no I' and 'no phenomena' mean?

AEN: Like you said it's only mental constructs that are false… But consciousness can't be denied?

Thusness: No… I am not saying that Buddha never denied the aggregates Just the selfhood The problem is what is meant by 'non-inherent', empty nature, of phenomena and 'I'

2010

Thusness: But understanding it wrongly is another matter. Can you deny Witnessing? Can you deny that certainty of being?

AEN: No

Thusness: Then there is nothing wrong with it. How could you deny your very own existence? How could you deny existence at all. There is nothing wrong experiencing directly without intermediary the pure sense of existence. After this direct experience, you should refine your understanding, your view, your insights. Not after the experience, deviate from the right view, re-enforce your wrong view. You do not deny the witness, you refine your insight of it: what is meant by non-dual. What is meant by non-conceptual, what is being spontaneous, what is the 'impersonality' aspect. What is luminosity. You never experience anything unchanging. In later phase, when you experience non-dual, there is still this tendency to focus on a background… And that will prevent your progress into the direct insight into the TATA as described in the tata article. And there are still different degree of intensity even you realized to that level.

AEN: Non-dual?

AEN: I see…

Thusness: It is all about the integration of the insight of anatta and emptiness. Vividness into transience, feeling what I called 'the texture and fabric' of Awareness as forms is very important; then comes emptiness. The integration of luminosity and emptiness. Do not deny that Witnessing but refine the view, that is very important. So far, you have correctly emphasized the importance of witnessing. Unlike in the past, you gave people the impression that you are denying this witnessing presence. You merely deny the personification, reification and objectification so that you can progress further and realize our empty nature. But don't always post what I told you in MSN. In no time, I will become sort of cult leader

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Anatta is no ordinary insight. When we can reach the level of thorough transparency, you will realize the benefits. Non-conceptuality, clarity, luminosity, transparency, openness, spaciousness, thoughtlessness, non-locality… all these descriptions become quite meaningless.

2009

Thusness: It is always witnessing… don't get it wrong; just whether one understands its emptiness nature or not. There is always luminosity. Since when there is no witnessing? It is just luminosity and emptiness nature, not luminosity alone. There is always this witnessing… it is the divided sense that you have to get rid. That is why I never deny the witness experience and realization, just the right understanding.

2008

Thusness: There is no problem being the witness, the problem is only wrong understanding of what witness is. That is seeing duality in Witnessing. Or seeing 'Self' and other, subject-object division. That is the problem. You can call it Witnessing or Awareness, there must be no sense of self. Yes: witnessing, not witness. In witnessing, it is always non-dual. When in witness, it is always a witness and object being witnessed; when there is an observer, there is no such thing as no observed. When you realised that there is only witnessing, there is no observer and observed, it is always non-dual. That is why when genpo something said there is no witness only witnessing, yet taught the staying back and observed, I commented the path deviates from the view

AEN: I see…

Thusness: When you teach experience the witness, you teach that this is not about no subject-object split; you are teaching one to experience that witness. First stage of insight of the "I AM". Are you denying the "I AMness" experience?

AEN: You mean in the post? No. It's more like the nature of 'I am' right

Thusness: What is being denied?

AEN: The dualistic understanding?

Thusness: Yes it is the wrong understanding of that experience. Just like 'redness' of a flower.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Vivid and seems real and belongs to the flower. It only appears so, it is not so. When we see in terms of subject/object dichotomy, it appears puzzling that there is thoughts, no thinker. There is sound, no hearer and there is rebirth, but no permanent soul being reborn. It is puzzling because of our deeply held view of seeing things inherently where dualism is a subset of this 'inherent' seeing. So what is the problem?

AEN: I see… The deeply held views?

Thusness: Yes. What is the problem?

AEN: Back

Thusness: The problem is the root cause of suffering lies in this deeply held view. We search and are attached because these views. This is the relationship between 'view' and 'consciousness'. There is no escape. With inherent view, there is always 'I' and 'Mine'. There is always 'belongs' like the 'redness' belongs to the flower. Therefore despite all transcendental experiences, there is no liberation without right understanding.

2009

Thusness: By the way, you should not tell people about there is no such witness exist.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: It is right understanding of what witness is all about.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: “Today I noticed that trying to remove perceived unclear thoughts and confusion has nothing to do with the unstained awareness that is already so.” What have you understood?

AEN: Awareness is not affected by any particular thoughts?

Thusness: Meaning? There is awareness and there is thoughts? And awareness is not affected by thoughts? By the way what is meant by affected?

AEN: Means it's still present regardless what is arising

Thusness: Means you are referring to the state of presence?

AEN: Yes.. Presence and knowingness

Thusness: What is inseparability to you? Do you understand "inseparable" only at the conceptual level and stop at just the "meaning" of it? Just simply knowing by definition? Or at the non-conceptual level? Is your understanding at the level of direct experience which is non-conceptual or conceptual?

AEN: Think still more towards conceptual

Thusness: Presence and arising are not separated

AEN: I see.

Thusness: What is 'inseparable' here? At the non-dual level, at the anatta level or DO level?

AEN: Nondual?

Thusness: You must observe and directly experience every arising in bare, raw and free from labelling first. Then upon analysis, there is still an observer and the observed

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Until you are so clear in real time experience that the observer and the observed are one. Then you further investigate this experience if they are always one, why is there any separation in the first place? Why experience occasionally appears split?

AEN: Propensities?

Thusness: Continue this investigation and experience the split as well as the non-dual. Till you are thoroughly clear that observer and observed is merely an assumption. There is always only observation. Just one pure witnessing.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: This is the non-dual experience that you must have in order to understand the Advaita witnessing. One whole Experience. You do not say it is flowing through the Eye, there is absolutely no difference between the light and everything. The light is the everything. You must have this experience first.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: After this do not extrapolate, do not reify, do not abstract anything further. Any urge to go beyond, see with clarity it is the tendency… until you are able to rest completely first.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Until you are able to rest completely first. => I mean you must be able to rest deeply in this non-dual experience first then understand anatta and DO from there. There is no denial of this non-dual Witnessing. It is only right understanding of this experience.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Because of the inability of going beyond the dualistic framework, there is such "You are me" and "I am you" such erroneous concept by extrapolating an ultimate essence that all shares. This is what I do not want you to get into. But the dissolution of the split is most precious and important.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: I have to go makan

AEN: Ok.. See you

Thusness: It is most important to realize that this Witnessing is by nature non-dual and has always been so but that has nothing to do with an ultimate nature. Having this non-dual experience has nothing to do with an ultimate nature.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: So not to extrapolate, reify, abstract anything further but rather allow complete resting in this non-dual state first and allow the tendency to extrapolate to settle. Because if we extrapolate and entertain this tendency, it blinds us further. In fact that is the cause of suffering. Despite this non-dual non-conceptual experience of the witnessing itself, we are still not free the tendency to reify.

AEN: I see… Extrapolate means think conceptually?

Thusness: Many misunderstood that DO denies freedom as it is 'dependent'. This is attempting to understanding DO through a dualistic framework. In actual experience, DO leads to liberation whereas attachment to an ultimate essence is the cause of suffering despite having clear and direct experience of the non-dual non-conceptual aspect of Awareness. Extrapolate means deducing further than what is being actually experienced. I have always told you that "I AM" is a direct experience of Awareness. But you are telling people it does not exist. I am saying it is not the experience of our Buddha nature. I said that this experience is misunderstood.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: I told you many times that nothing is more precious than a direct touch of this luminous nature but no experience is more dangerous than misinterpreting this experience, this direct touch.


26 JULY 2020

John Tan: “In zen though they say there is no mind, they in fact embrace mind more fully than all is mind, until no trace of mind can be detected. Yet [Ven.] Sheng Yen said this is just the entry point of zen because originally there is no mind and this is clearly realized in anatta. So post anatta, mind and phenomena are completely indistinguishable. If both mind and phenomena are completely indistinguishable in experience, then distinctions are nothing more than conventional designation of empty luminous display.

Soh Wei Yu: I see… By the way did Sheng Yen realise anatta?

John Tan: So you must know when we say no awareness, no self, no I, it doesn't mean nothing. It is seeing through the background construct and open the gate to directly taste, experience and effortlessly authenticate clarity. I believe so but he did not talk about his experience except the stanza before his death that is beautiful. “无事忙中老,空里有哭笑,本来没有我,生死皆可抛” 台湾高僧圣严法师圆寂 (Busy with nothing till old. (无事忙中老) In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing. (空里有哭笑) Originally there never was any 'I'. (本来没有我) Thus life and death can be cast aside. (生死皆可抛)) - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/…/differentiate…


Daniel M. Ingram

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/…/intelligence… "So you have these two extremes - both of which I find pretty annoying (laughs) - and uhm, not that they are not making interesting points that counterbalance each other. And then, from an experiential point of view, the whole field seems to be happening on its own in a luminous way, the intelligence or awareness seems to be intrinsic in the phenomena, the phenomena do appear to be totally transient, totally ephemeral. So I would reject from an experiential point of view, something in the harshness of the dogma of the rigid no-selfists that can't recognise the intrinsic nature of awareness that is the field. If that makes sense. Because they tend to feel there's something about that's sort of (cut off?)…"

Interviewer: "And not only awareness…"

Daniel: "Intelligence. Right, and I also reject from an experiential point of view the people who would make this permanent, something separate from, something different from just the manifestation itself. I don't like the permanence aspect because from a Buddhist technical point of view I do not find anything that stands up as permanent in experience. I find that quality always there *while there is experience.* Because it's something in the nature of experience. But it's not quite the same thing as permanence, if that makes sense. So while there is experience, there is experience. So that means there is awareness, from a certain point of view, manifestation - awareness being intrinsically the same thing, intrinsic to each other. So while there is experience, I would claim that element (awareness) is there - it has to be for there to be experience. And I would claim that the system seems to function very lawfully and it's very easy to feel that there's a sort of intelligence, ok, cool… the feeling of profundity, the feeling of miraculousness, the wondrous component. So as the Tibetans would say, amazing! It all happens by itself! So, there is intrinsically amazing about this. It's very refreshingly amazing that the thing happens, and that things cognize themselves or are aware where they are, manifestation is truly amazing and tuning into that amazingness has something valuable about it from a pragmatic point of view."


24 MAY 2012

John: But experientially same but just the degree of right understanding. Not exactly one mind. Do you feel everything as Self now? As in that experience of I M powerfully present at this moment

Soh Wei Yu: Yes presence, but as change

John: As if like Awareness clear and open like space, without meditation yet powerfully present and non-dual, where the 4 Aspects of I M are fully experienced in this moment

Soh Wei Yu: Yes, I think the four aspects is only fully experienced after nondual and anatta, especially effortlessness and no need to abide

John: This experience will become more and more powerful later yet effortless and uncontrived. How so? If it is not correct insights and practice, how is it possible for such complete and total experience of effortless and uncontrived Presence be possible?

Soh Wei Yu: I do not see it is possible without the proper insights and practice. In anatta every activity is it, is buddha nature, so no contrivance at all. No need to meditate to get anywhere. But meditation is still important to cultivate certain aspects like tranquility

John: Indeed and this is being authenticated by the immediate moment of experience. How could there be doubt about it? The last trace of Presence must be released with seeing through the emptiness nature of whatever arises.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

John: After maturing and integrating your insights into practice, there must be no effort and action… The entire whole is doing the work and arises as this vivid moment of shimmering appearance, this has always been what we always called Presence.

2013

25 DECEMBER 2013

John Tan: By the way, are experiences (appearances), immensely crystal, brilliance and sharp..without any background… so crystal that a sense of transparency arises? It must be a natural and effortless. In normal circumstances, having enough rest and relax… without need to meditate… natural and relax. Not when you are busy. So crystal that there is always this sense of absorption. Openness like space, clear and boundless. In later phase, it must be even stronger than the initial phase (Soh: of anatta). You need to have enough rest and if possible take more vegetables


Thusness wrote in 2012:

"I do not see practice apart from realizing the essence and nature of awareness. The only difference is seeing Awareness as an ultimate essence or realizing awareness as this seamless activity that fills the entire Universe. When we say there is no scent of a flower, the scent is the flower… That is because the mind, body, universe are all together deconstructed into this single flow, this scent and only this… Nothing else. That is the Mind that is no mind. There is not an Ultimate Mind that transcends anything in the Buddhist enlightenment. The mind is this very manifestation of total exertion … wholly thus. Therefore there is always no mind, always only this vibration of moving train, this cooling air of the air-con, this breath… The question is after the 7 phases of insights can this be realized and experienced and becomes the ongoing activity of practice in enlightenment and enlightenment in practice -- practice-enlightenment."

Thusness, 2012:

"Has awareness stood out? There is no concentration needed. When six entries and exits are pure and primordial, the unconditioned stands shining, relaxed and uncontrived, luminous yet empty. The purpose of going through the 7 phases of perception shift is for this… Whatever arises is free and uncontrived, that is the supreme path. Whatever arises has never left their nirvanic state… Your current mode of practice [after those experiential insights] should be as direct and uncontrived as possible. When you see nothing behind and magical appearances are too empty, awareness is naturally lucid and free. Views and all elaborations dissolved, mind-body forgotten… Just unobstructed awareness. Awareness natural and uncontrived is supreme goal. Relax and do nothing, Open and boundless, Spontaneous and free, Whatever arises is fine and liberated, This is the supreme path. Top/bottom, inside/outside, Always without center and empty (2-fold emptiness), Then view is fully actualized and all experiences are great liberation."


21 DECEMBER 2013

Soh Wei Yu: I'm eating durian chendol in Malacca. Famous shop here very nice. The shop is playing jing kong fa shi VCD. He talks about an unborn undying ling xing - spirit. That which reborns in six realms he says is not the body but the ling xing spirit. It is that which goes to pure land. Haha

22 DECEMBER 2013

John Tan: His view is more substantial view. Buddhism does not deny luminous clarity, in fact, it is to have total, uncontrived, direct non-referential of clarity in all moments… therefore no-self apart from manifestation. Otherwise one is only holding ghost images. So understanding a spirit traveling in the 6 realms is different from recognizing these realms are nothing more than one's radiance clarity.


John Tan: “The Absolute as separated from the transience is what I have indicated as the 'Background' in my 2 posts to theprisonergreco. 84. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4] Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT Hi theprisonergreco, First is what exactly is the ‘background’? Actually it doesn’t exist. It is only an image of a ‘non-dual’ experience that is already gone. The dualistic mind fabricates a ‘background’ due to the poverty of its dualistic and inherent thinking mechanism. It ‘cannot’ understand or function without something to hold on to. That experience of the ‘I’ is a complete, non-dual foreground experience. When the background subject is understood as an illusion, all transience phenomena reveal themselves as Presence. It is like naturally 'vipassanic' throughout. From the hissing sound of PC, to the vibration of the moving MRT train, to the sensation when the feet touches the ground, all these experiences are crystal clear, no less “I AM” than “I AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. -:) So the “I AM” is just like any other experiences when the subject-object split is gone. No different from an arising sound. It only becomes a static background as an afterthought when our dualistic and inherent tendencies are in action. The first 'I-ness' stage of experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which you called it the center. You marked it. Then later you realized that when you marked other points on the surface of a sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial experience of non-dual. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does not exist: all points are a center. After then practice move from 'concentrative' to 'effortlessness'. That said, after this initial non-dual insight, 'background' will still surface occasionally for another few years due to latent tendencies… 86. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4] To be more exact, the so called 'background' consciousness is that pristine happening. There is no a 'background' and a 'pristine happening'. During the initial phase of non-dual, there is still habitual attempt to 'fix' this imaginary split that does not exist. It matures when we realized that anatta is a seal, not a stage; in hearing, always only sounds; in seeing always only colors, shapes and forms; in thinking, always only thoughts. Always and already so. -:) Many non-dualists after the intuitive insight of the Absolute hold tightly to the Absolute. This is like attaching to a point on the surface of a sphere and calling it 'the one and only center'. Even for those Advaitins that have clear experiential insight of no-self (no object-subject split), an experience similar to that of anatta (First emptying of subject) are not spared from these tendencies. They continue to sink back to a Source. It is natural to reference back to the Source when we have not sufficiently dissolved the latent disposition but it must be correctly understood for what it is. Is this necessary and how could we rest in the Source when we cannot even locate its whereabout? Where is that resting place? Why sink back? Isn't that another illusion of the mind? The 'Background' is just a thought moment to recall or an attempt to reconfirm the Source. How is this necessary? Can we even be a thought moment apart? The tendency to grasp, to solidify experience into a 'center' is a habitual tendency of the mind at work. It is just a karmic tendency. Realize It! This is what I meant to Adam the difference between One-Mind and No-Mind.” - John Tan, 2009, excerpt from Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience

Excerpts from the AtR guide: I noticed that many Buddhists trained under the doctrine of anatta and emptiness seem to be put off by the description of “I AM realization” as it seems to contradict anatta. This will prevent their progress as they will fail to appreciate and realize the depth of luminous presence, and their understanding of anatta and emptiness remains intellectual. It should be understood that the I AM realization does not contradict Anatta realization but complements it. It is the “original face before your parents were born” of Zen, and the unfabricated clarity in Dzogchen that serves as initial rigpa; it is also the initial certainty of Mind discovered in the first of the four yogas of Mahamudra (see: Clarifying the Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal). Calling it “I AM” is just another name for the same thing, and you should also know that AtR’s definition of I AM is different from Buddhism’s term “conceit of I Am” or Nisargadatta’s I Am. The I AM of AtR is a direct taste and realization of the Mind of Clear Light. The view gets refined and the taste gets brought to effortless maturity and non-contrivance in all manifestation as one’s insights deepen. As John Tan also said in 2011:

John: What is "I AM"? Is it a PCE? (Soh: PCE = pure consciousness experience, see glossary at the bottom of this document.) Is there emotion? Is there feeling? Is there thought? Is there division or complete stillness? In hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound! So what is "I AM"?

Soh Wei Yu: It is the same just that pure non-conceptual thought

John: Is there 'being'?

Soh Wei Yu: No, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought

John: Indeed it is the mis-interpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion. That experience itself is pure conscious experience. There is nothing that is impure. That is why it is a sense of pure existence. It is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view', so it is a pure conscious experience in thought. Not sound, taste, touch… etc PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste… The quality and depth of experience in sound in contacts in taste in scenery has he truly experienced the immense luminous clarity in the senses? If so, what about 'thought'? When all senses are shut, the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut. Then with senses open, have a clear understanding. Do not compare irrationally without clear understanding.

2007

Thusness: You don't think that "I AMness" is low stage of enlightenment. The experience is the same. It is just the clarity. In terms of insight. Not experience.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: So a person that has experience "I AMness" and non-dual is the same. Except the insight is different.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Non-dual is every moment there is the experience of presence. Or the insight into the every moment experience of presence. Because what prevents that experience is the illusion of self and "I AM" is that distorted view. The experience is the same. Didn’t you see I always say there is nothing wrong with that experience to longchen, jonls… I only say it is skewed towards the thought realm. So don't differentiate but know what is the problem. I always say it is misinterpretation of the experience of presence. Not the experience itself. But "I AMness" prevents us from seeing.


This also reminded me of: “It is not the contemplations that are important, it is the view brought to contemplation that makes the difference. For example, there is no actual difference between the Hindu Nirvikalpa samadhi and Vajropama samadhi in terms of its content, but the fact that one is accompanied by insight and the other is not makes the difference between whether it is mundane or liberative.” – Dzogchen Teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2014

2009

Thusness: By the way, do you know about Hokai's description and "I AM" being the same experience?

AEN: The watcher right

Thusness: No. I mean the Shingon practice of the body, mind, speech into one.

AEN: Oh that's I am experience?

Thusness: Yes, except that the object of practice is not based on consciousness. What is meant by foreground? It is the disappearance of the background and what's left is it. Similarly the "I AM" is the experience of no background and experiencing consciousness directly. That is why it is just simply "I-I" or "I AM".

AEN: I've heard of the way people describe consciousness as the background consciousness becoming the foreground… So there's only consciousness aware of itself and that's still like I AM experience.

Thusness: That is why it is described that way, awareness aware of itself and as itself.

AEN: But you also said I AM people sink to a background?

Thusness: Yes

AEN: Sinking to background = background becoming foreground?

Thusness: That is why I said it is misunderstood. And we treat that as ultimate.

AEN: I see. But what hokai described is also nondual experience right

Thusness: I have told you many times that the experience is right but the understanding is wrong. That is why it is an insight and opening of the wisdom eyes. There is nothing wrong with the experience of I AM". Did I say that there is anything wrong with it?

AEN: Nope

Thusness: Even in stage 4 what did I say?

AEN: It's the same experience except in sound, sight, etc

Thusness: Sound as the exact same experience as "I AM"… As presence.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Yes.

"I AM" is a luminous thought in samadhi as I-I. Anatta is a realization of that in extending the insight to the 6 entries and exits.– John Tan, 2018


"The purpose of anatta is to have full blown experience of the heart -- boundlessly, completely, non-dually and non-locally. Re-read what I wrote to Jax. In every situations, in all conditions, in all events. It is to eliminate unnecessary contrivance so that our essence can be expressed without obscuration. Jax wants to point to the heart but is unable to express in a non-dual way… For in duality, the essence cannot be realized. All dualistic interpretation are mind made. You know the smile of Mahākāśyapa? Can you touch the heart of that smile even 2500 yrs later? One must lose all mind and body by feeling with entire mind and body this essence which is 心 (Mind). Yet 心 (Mind) too is 不可得 (ungraspable/unobtainable).. The purpose is not to deny 心 (Mind) but rather not to place any limitations or duality so that 心 (Mind) can fully manifest. Therefore without understanding 缘 (conditions),is to limit 心 (Mind). Without understanding 缘 (conditions),is to place limitation in its manifestations. You must fully experience 心 (Mind) by realizing 无心 (No-Mind) and fully embrace the wisdom of 不可得 (ungraspable/unobtainable)."– John Tan/Thusness, 2014

P.s. Self-Enquiry (asking Who am I?) is a potent method to the initial awakening to one's Pure Presence-Awareness or "I AM realization". Also see: What is your very Mind right now?

Also related: The Transient Universe has a Heart